NAVBHARAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the Appellant seeks condonation of one day delay in filing the present Appeal. It has been shown that the tentative date set by the Registry for delivery of the Certified Copy was 18.1.2010. It appears that the Certified Copy was, in fact, ready on 15.1.2010. Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant, had computed the last date for filing of the Appeal, taking the start of limitation to be 18.1.2010 and, therefore, had filed the Appeal on 16.2.2010, expecting it to be within time. We think that it would be unfair and impractical to expect an Advocate to check virtually every day as to whether or not the certified copy applied for has been prepared by the Registry and is ready for delivery. If a date has been given for collection of the certified copy, it is that date which should be taken into consideration for computing the period of limitation. We may immediately clarify that if the certified copy is prepared and has been collected on a date prior to the date given by the Registry, limitation would commence from the date of collection or delivery.

(2.) In these circumstances, we hold that the Appeal has been filed within time and hence the application is infructuous and stands disposed of.

(3.) In the present case, as many as thirty one Claims have been raised by the Appellant against the Respondent/DDA. Some Claims have been partially allowed and others have been rejected in toto. The Objections, however, were filed pertaining only to Claim No. 29 which is for an amount of ' 5,30,000/- on account of Watch & Ward from July 1993 to November 1997. The Appellant had claimed that sum since as against the stipulated date of completion of work, that is, 20.3.1992, the Work was actually completed in July, 1993.